Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Utah judicial nominating commissions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Judicial nominating commissions
Judicialselectionlogo.png
Individual nominating committees
Select a committee in the dropdown below and click "Submit" to view information about that committee.
Methods of judicial selection
Partisan elections
Nonpartisan elections
Michigan method
Retention elections
Assisted appointment
Bar-controlled commission
Governor-controlled commission
Hybrid commission
Legislative elections
Gubernatorial appointment

The Utah judicial nominating commissions, taken together, are the agencies in Utah charged with recommending candidates for appointment to the district and juvenile courts in the state's eight judicial districts, as well as all appellate courts.[1] In total, there are nine nominating commissions.

To read more about the statewide commission responsible for the state's appellate courts, click here.

The Utah Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice describes the commissions in the following way as of April 8, 2025:

Judicial nominating commissions help select candidates for judicial vacancies. There is a nominating commission for each judicial district, including the appellate courts. Each commission consists of seven commissioners appointed by the Governor to serve a four-year term. Each commissioner must be a U.S. citizen, a resident of Utah, and a resident of the judicial district the commission is representing. Commissioners may not be members of the state Legislature and may not serve successive terms.[1]

[2]

Click here to see a list of commissions and commissioners. The judicial nominating commissions are separate from the Utah Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission, which publishes performance evaluations of judges standing for retention elections.

Control of judicial selection commissions

Assisted appointment is a method of judicial selection in which a nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[3]

At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types, based on the makeup of the judicial nominating commissions. Those types are:

  • Governor-controlled commission - The governor is either responsible for appointing a majority of the members of the nominating commission or may decline to appoint a candidate from a list provided by the nominating commission.
  • Bar-controlled commission - Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing a majority of the members of the nominating commission.
  • Hybrid - There is no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state Bar Association. The membership of these commissions is determined by different rules in each state.

Twenty-three courts in 22 states used assisted appointment to select state supreme court justices as of June 2021.[4][5] Utah used a governor-controlled commission. The table below shows the number of courts using each variation of assisted appointment at the state supreme court level.

Assisted appointment methods in state supreme courts
Method Courts (of 23)
Governor-controlled majority 10
Bar-controlled majority 1
Hybrid 12

About judicial selection

Each state has a unique set of guidelines governing how they select judges at the state and local level. These methods of selection are:

Election

  • Partisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot alongside a label designating political party affiliation.
  • Nonpartisan election: Judges are elected by the people, and candidates are listed on the ballot without a label designating party affiliation.
  • Michigan method: State supreme court justices are selected through nonpartisan elections preceded by either partisan primaries or conventions.
  • Retention election: A periodic process whereby voters are asked whether an incumbent judge should remain in office for another term. Judges are not selected for initial terms in office using this election method.

Assisted appointment

  • Assisted appointment, also known as merit selection or the Missouri Plan: A nominating commission reviews the qualifications of judicial candidates and submits a list of names to the governor, who appoints a judge from the list.[3] At the state supreme court level, this method is further divided into the following three types:
    • Bar-controlled commission: Members of the state Bar Association are responsible for electing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees that they must choose from.
    • Governor-controlled commission: The governor is responsible for appointing a majority of the judicial nominating commission that sends the governor a list of nominees they must choose from.
    • Hybrid commission: The judicial nominating commission has no majority of members chosen by either the governor or the state bar association. These commissions determine membership in a variety of ways, but no institution or organization has a clear majority control.

Direct appointment

Click a state on the map below to explore judicial selection processes in that state.
http://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_STATE


See also

State courts Appointment methods Election methods
State-Supreme-Courts-Ballotpedia.png
Judicialselectionlogo.png
Ballotpedia Elections Badge-VOTE.png
State supreme courts
Intermediate appellate courts
Trial courts
Assisted appointment
Court appointment
Gubernatorial appointment
Legislative election
Municipal government selection
Partisan election
Nonpartisan election
Michigan method


Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 Utah Commission on Criminal & Juvenile Justice, accessed December 2, 2021
  2. Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. 3.0 3.1 American Bar Association, "Judicial Selection: The Process of Choosing Judges," June 2008 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "ambaroverview" defined multiple times with different content
  4. As of June 2021, Oklahoma had two state supreme courts: one for civil matters and one for criminal matters.
  5. North Dakota uses this method only for vacancies.